A foray into the heart of social nerdiness

Group Dynamics

This post started off as a continuation of my earlier post. It’s went through about three revisions when I came to the realization that I kept trying to write on a different subject. So I’m putting aside that particular series for now. Maybe I’ll come back to it, after I’ve laid some more groundwork. Now, onwards to the content!

I’ve been mulling over an idea for the past couple of weeks about what makes a character fun to play. And I kept coming back to one key concept: a character is as only fun to play as the group you’re playing with allows it to be. Group dynamics are everything with role-playing. I’m sure this topic has been beat into the ground, but I can’t resist mulling it over in my mind. In my mind, the concept of the group dynamic can be broken down into several abstract areas. Today, I’m just going to talk about the first area: things ‘allowed’ within the group.
This is an odd area to pin down, because the “rules” are both universal and specific at the same time. For example, it is usually considered bad form to shank the person sitting next to you, regardless if that person took the last diet cola from the fridge. Of course there are exceptions, but “not shanking the person next to you” is generally regarded as A Very Good Idea. From there, the understood norm deviates greatly. It’s the small rules that make up a unique social dynamic, like when is it proper to make “your mom” jokes; if you say “that’s what she said” in front of a certain person, that person reserves the right to hit you; or in-game if the appropriate response to a conflict is to a) try to come to a reasonable compromise or b) kill them all and wear their guts for garters. It’s all very confusing, and can be hard to suss out. So what makes up these unspoken rules, at least in a game?

I’m not entirely sure about the answer, to tell the truth. I’ve never really studied group behaviors, instead focusing on how the individual reacts to the group. So working from that, I keep returning to the Richard A. Bartle theory of types of MUD players. For those of you who find Dr. Bartle’s tl;dr, a summary (and shame on you! It’s an excellent article!).

There are four types of players: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers.

It seems pretty simple when stripped down to that bare minimum, but that’s the gist of the article. He talks more about how the different player types interact, and how each of those characters relate to the in-game world.

This is how killers and socializers interact, I imagine. Explorers and achievers I envision as a couple of old-timey British explorers sitting around in a room, smoking pipes, and telling stories about their travels.

So what does this have to do with group dynamics? A socializer wandering into a game centered around getting the ten pieces of the staff of Ra probably won’t have as much fun as they would in a game focusing political intrigue. Conversely, an explorer isn’t going to be enjoying themselves in a generic setting without things to explore, discover and (possibly) exploit. That said, it is possible to balance the needs and interests of different player types, but it can be a bit hairy at times.

I seem to have wandered into a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that. The point I’m trying to make is that the social dynamic is driven in large part by the types of players that make up the group. In a role-playing setting, achievers and killers tend to lean more towards min-maxing, while explorers and socializers prefer more world-building. Of course, this is not the only part, but it’s the foundation stone to the other areas of what make up a group dynamic. I feel like I’ve talked around in circles a bit, but I can’t think of a way to make it any more clear.

When finding a roleplaying group, it’s important to find one that can accomodate your needs as a player. For example, I ran away from 3rd/3.5 edition as fast as my legs would carry me after a rather unfortunate instance with a group of guys who insisted on rules-lawyering EVERYTHING. At one point, they were looking the the PHB to find the rules so our party leader could cleave a hut using his bastard sword. Couple that with one of the guys being THAT creepy guy (female readers will know what I mean. The guy who hits on everything vaguely female in the least flattering way possible). The whole experience soured me on role-playing games for a while. I think that I’m lucky to have found two groups (with possibly a third in the making) that compliment my strengths and weaknesses as a player. And that, along with cheetos and having a good time, is what roleplaying is about, in my book.

As a socializer, I tend to be a bit fuzzier on how the rules and systems of each game work. Luckily for me, I married an achiever/explorer hybrid, and he helps me navigate the rules of the game. Conversely, I tend to work harder at finding out the plot and relationships between characters in-game. Now, this isn’t always true, it’s a very general stereotyping of the situation. But having somebody who understands the unspoken rules and can explain them to the others helps make it a lot more fun.